DOCSLIB.ORG

REPORT 150 STC 19 E Rev. 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPORT 150 STC 19 E Rev. 1 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE (STC) NATO ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE: REBUILDING CAPABILITY, PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE Special Report by Leona ALLESLEV (Canada) Special Rapporteur 150 STC 19 E rev. 1 fin | Original: English | 13 October 2019 150 STC 19 E TABLE OF CONTENT I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 II. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEA FOR THE ALLIANCE ...................................................... 2 III. THE RUSSIAN SUBMARINE THREAT TO NATO ................................................................. 3 A. SUBMARINES IN RUSSIA’S STRATEGY .................................................................... 3 B. THE STATE OF RUSSIA’S SUBMARINE FLEET ......................................................... 6 IV. A VIEW TOWARDS EAST ASIA ............................................................................................ 8 A. RECENT CHINESE DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................ 8 B. NASCENT NORTH KOREAN CAPABILITIES ............................................................ 11 V. ALLIED ASW CAPABILITY SHORTFALLS AND ONGOING MODERNISATION ................ 11 A. THE OVERALL STATE OF ALLIED ASW CAPABILITIES .......................................... 11 B. TACTICAL SUBMARINES: HIGH QUALITY, MIXED PICTURE OVERALL ................ 13 C. MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT: A KEY SHORTFALL AREA .................................... 14 D. ONGOING FRIGATE MODERNISATION ACROSS THE ALLIANCE ......................... 15 VI. TOWARDS A NEW VISION FOR ASW ............................................................................... 16 A. SENSOR TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 16 B. MARITIME UNMANNED SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 16 VII. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 19 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 21 150 STC 19 E rev. 1 fin I. INTRODUCTION1 1. In recent years, Allies have seen a sizeable increase in Russian submarine patrols in Allied areas of operation. In 2018, then UK Minister of Defence Gavin Williamson estimated that Russian patrols had increased by a factor of ten between 2011 and 2017 (Cecil and Collins, 2018). Worryingly, navies spotted Russian submarines in some very sensitive spots: a mere 350 kilometres from the US eastern seaboard, close to the UK nuclear deterrent’s home base, and near critical undersea communication cables (Perkins, 2018; McLaughlin, 2017; and Birnbaum, 2017). All of this led Admiral James G. Foggo III, current Commander of US Naval Forces Europe and NATO Joint Force Command Naples, to argue that “Russian submarines are prowling the Atlantic, testing our defences, confronting our command of the seas, and preparing the complex underwater battlespace to give them an edge in any future conflict” (Foggo and Fritz, 2016). 2. Russia may be the most immediate submarine threat to the Alliance, but there are other submarine fleets which should concern Allies. First, China’s expanding global forays – such as the One Belt, One Road initiative or its increasing Arctic presence – go hand-in-hand with increasing naval defence investments, including submarine modernisation. Second, as North Korea seeks to create an operational nuclear deterrent directed against one NATO Ally in particular, its navy is seeking to develop submarines armed with sea-launched ballistic missiles. 3. The increase in Russian submarine patrols should concern the political and military leadership of the Alliance. Since World War I, submarines have been a critical threat to civilian and naval vessels because of their stealth, silence, and speed (Perkins, 2016). A single submarine could shut down a strategic maritime chokepoint, threatening everything from merchant vessels to carrier strike groups. Submarines can thus deny naval power projection and disrupt critical sea lines of communication. When equipped with land-attack cruise missiles, they can also hold critical points on land at risk. In short, “every submarine is a strategic asset”, as Germany’s Submarine Force Commander, Captain Timo Cordes, has noted (Bliddal, 2019). 4. Unlike other ‘hard’ military capabilities like tanks or even missiles, submarines are also very well suited for asymmetric and hybrid tactics because they lend themselves to deceit and deniability. In particular, the threat to undersea communication cables has risen substantially. Such cables carry about 80% of data between North America and Europe, Vice Admiral Hervé Bléjean, Deputy Commander of Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM), told a NATO PA Sub-Committee on Technology Trends and Security (STCTTS) delegation in June 2019. Satellites could only make up for 10% of the total transatlantic data transfers, he said. Special purpose submarines play a key role in the threat to undersea cables, as they can covertly tap or cut these cables to gain valuable intelligence or disrupt vital services. 5. Another fact should worry NATO even more: a severe shortfall of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities across the Alliance. In the words of then MARCOM Commander Vice Admiral Sir Clive Johnstone, NATO faces a situation where “we are very short of high-end submarine warfare hunters” (Fabey, 2018). Allies have belatedly woken up to this capability shortfall and have committed to remedying the situation. NATO has conducted strategic assessments, reinforced its maritime posture, initiated reforms of command and control mechanisms, and intensified its ASW exercise regime. 6. Certainly, the ASW challenge requires adaptation across the board, but no adaptation can compensate for possessing enough of the right capabilities. This special report thus squarely focuses on the need to rebuild NATO’s ASW assets in the short and long term – a topic which must deserve the Allies’ full attention. Before ending with a set of recommendations, the report: 1 Unless otherwise noted, information contained in this report is derived from publicly available sources. For more information, please contact the Committee Director. 1 150 STC 19 E rev. 1 fin - demonstrates the importance of the sea for the Alliance; - examines the concrete Russian submarine threat to NATO; - highlights key developments in the Chinese and North Korean submarine fleets; - outlines the most critical ASW capability shortfalls in the Alliance; - presents important national and NATO modernisation efforts; and - sketches a future vision of ASW based on emerging technologies. 7. Notably, 2019 Committee visits to Singapore and the United Kingdom reinforced the analysis and findings of this Special report. In both countries, delegates gained insights into specific ASW challenges and the way these two naval nations address them, in particular the maritime unmanned technology challenge. The report also complements this year’s Report Evolving Security in the North Atlantic of the Defence and Security Committee (DSC). II. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEA FOR THE ALLIANCE 8. The importance of the sea for the Alliance can hardly be overstated (see also Map 1). The conventional defence of Europe rests on two pillars (Breedlove, 2018). First, the Alliance must have robust military power, including Canadian and US forces, present and ready in Europe, including its maritime approaches. Second, the North American Allies must be able to reinforce and resupply the European continent with materiel and personnel in times of crisis or war. International law, norms, and multinational institutions underpin the principle of freedom of navigation in peace time (Tamnes, 2018). However, in contingency situations, the Alliance will only be able to guarantee such freedom if it can exercise control of the sea and project power into and across it. 9. As its name makes abundantly clear, the North Map 1: GIUK and Suwalki Gaps Atlantic Ocean is at the core of the North Atlantic Treaty (map: Google Earth; labelling: NATO PA) Organization. It is a vital part of NATO’s area of responsibility and its most important sea line of communication (Olsen, 2018). It is “NATO’s lifeblood”, as General Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, so aptly puts it (Breedlove, 2018). In addition to its military importance, it also remains the key to economic prosperity in North America and Europe and hosts critical undersea communication cables. 10. While the North Atlantic may be the most important maritime environment for the Alliance, NATO should also be in a position to exercise control of, or guarantee access to, its other maritime areas of responsibility, most importantly the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas. 11. The Baltic Sea connects nine European countries, including six Allies. Maritime traffic is extremely dense. Almost 15% of global maritime cargo traffic is related to the region (Nordenman, 2018). Moreover, the Baltic Sea is the third most important energy node after the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca. If Russia ever succeeded in closing the 104-kilometre land border between Poland and Lithuania (the Suwalki gap), the maritime approaches in the Baltic Sea would also be the only viable reinforcement and resupply route for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. 12. In recent decades, the Mediterranean Sea has become increasingly important for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Navy Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
    Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 14, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41129 Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program Summary The Navy’s Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program is a program to design and build a class of 12 new SSBNs to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 aging Ohio-class SSBNs. Since 2013, the Navy has consistently identified the Columbia-class program as the Navy’s top priority program. The Navy procured the first Columbia-class boat in FY2021 and wants to procure the second boat in the class in FY2024. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $3,003.0 (i.e., $3.0 billion) in procurement funding for the first Columbia-class boat and $1,644.0 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in advance procurement (AP) funding for the second boat, for a combined FY2022 procurement and AP funding request of $4,647.0 million (i.e., about $4.6 billion). The Navy’s FY2022 budget submission estimates the procurement cost of the first Columbia- class boat at $15,030.5 million (i.e., about $15.0 billion) in then-year dollars, including $6,557.6 million (i.e., about $6.60 billion) in costs for plans, meaning (essentially) the detail design/nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the Columbia class. (It is a long-standing Navy budgetary practice to incorporate the DD/NRE costs for a new class of ship into the total procurement cost of the first ship in the class.) Excluding costs for plans, the estimated hands-on construction cost of the first ship is $8,473.0 million (i.e., about $8.5 billion).
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Naval Affairs December 13, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships. For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows: The first Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine (SBNX) has been named Columbia in honor of the District of Columbia, but the Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be. Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states. Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the past 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress. Destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.
    [Show full text]
  • China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Navy Capabilities
    China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress Updated May 21, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33153 China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities Summary In an era of renewed great power competition, China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, has become the top focus of U.S. defense planning and budgeting. China’s navy, which China has been steadily modernizing for more than 25 years, since the early to mid-1990s, has become a formidable military force within China’s near-seas region, and it is conducting a growing number of operations in more-distant waters, including the broader waters of the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and waters around Europe. China’s navy is viewed as posing a major challenge to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain wartime control of blue-water ocean areas in the Western Pacific—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War—and forms a key element of a Chinese challenge to the long- standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific. China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a wide array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, unmanned vehicles (UVs), and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems. China’s naval modernization effort also includes improvements in maintenance and logistics, doctrine, personnel quality, education and training, and exercises.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32665 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S. policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115- 91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships, a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs). On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Postgraduate School Thesis
    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS A STUDY OF THE RUSSIAN ACQUISITION OF THE FRENCH MISTRAL AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT WARSHIPS by Patrick Thomas Baker June 2011 Thesis Advisor: Mikhail Tsypkin Second Reader: Douglas Porch Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2011 Master‘s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS A Study of the Russian Acquisition of the French Mistral Amphibious Assault Warships 6. AUTHOR(S) Patrick Thomas Baker 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Submarine Warfare Today
    Jacobson 205 Chapter VIII The Law of Submarine Warfare Today by Jon L. Jacobson* Introduction he roles of military submarines have evolved throughout the twentieth T century. In wartime, these roles have included coastal defense, harassment of enemy fleets, and, especially in World War II, hunting and destroying the seaborne commerce that supported the enemy's war efforts. Today, two principal roles for u.s. submarines, at least in any future war with the Soviet Union, are probably as anti-submarine weapons (attack submarines) and as strategic weapons platforms (ballistic missile submarines). Other missions, however, could include coastal defense, attacks on the enemy's surface fleet, projection of force ashore, and commerce warfare.1 The laws of war have never been comfortable with the submarine's unique combination of stealth and vulnerability. As will be explained below, it is this peculiar mix of strength and weakness that can be blamed as the root cause of the legal dilemma, particularly as it relates to the submarine's role as a commerce raider. The legal responses to this twentieth-century weapons platform have ranged from early proposals for its abolition to justification of its use under the rules of reprisal to tolerance of it as an effective war machine with characteristics that regrettably require some adjustments in the traditional laws of war. The U.s. Navy's new Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 9) includes references to the laws of naval warfare that specifically address the submarine weapons system and also rules that apply, or can apply, to submarines and their roles in wartime.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Shipbuilding: Prospects for Building a Larger Fleet
    Navy Shipbuilding: Prospects for Building a Larger Fleet January 15, 2021 Presentation at the Surface Navy Association’s 33rd Annual Symposium Eric J. Labs Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons National Security Division For further information about the venue, see https://navysnaevents.org/national-symposium. CBO’s Relevant Reports 1 Prospects for Building a Larger Fleet . The Navy’s New Shipbuilding Plan . The New Shipbuilding Plan in Historical Context . The Challenges of Building a Larger Fleet 2 The Navy’s New Shipbuilding Plan 3 The Future Naval Forces Study’s Larger and More Distributed Fleet 2016 FSA FNFS Ship Type Inventory Goals Inventory Goals Difference Aircraft Carriers 12 8 to 11 -1 to -4 Light Carriers 0 0 to 6 0 to 6 Ballistic Missile Submarines 12 12 0 Attack and Large Payload Submarines 66 72 to 78 6 to 12 Large Surface Combatants 104 73 to 88 -16 to -31 Small Surface Combatants 52 60 to 67 8 to 15 Large Amphibious Warfare Ships 12 9 to 10 -2 to -3 Small Amphibious Warfare Ships 26 52 to 57 26 to 31 Logistics and Support Ships 71 96 to 117 25 to 46 Unmanned Surface Vehicles n.a. 119 to 166 n.a. Unmanned Underwater Vehicles n.a. 24 to 76 n.a. Total Manned Ships 355 382 to 446 27 to 91 Total Unmanned Systems n.a. 143 to 242 n.a. Total Manned and Unmanned 355 525 to 688 170 to 333 FNFS = Future Naval Forces Study; FSA = Force Structure Assessment; n.a. = not applicable. 4 Ship Purchases Under the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2020 and December 2020 Shipbuilding Plans Ship Type Fiscal Year 2020 Plan December 2020 Plan Difference Aircraft Carriers 7 6 -1 Light Carriers 0 0 0 Ballistic Missile Submarines 12 11 -1 Attack and Large Payload Submarines 66 81 15 Large Surface Combatants 76 55 -21 Small Surface Combatants 58 76 18 Large Amphibious Warfare Ships 28 16 -12 Small Amphibious Warfare Ships 0 55 55 Logistics and Support Ships 57 104 47 Unmanned Surface Vehicles n.a.
    [Show full text]
  • China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S
    China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs Updated January 22, 2020 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33153 China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities Summary In an international security environment of renewed great power competition, China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, has become the top focus of U.S. defense planning and budgeting. China’s navy, which China has been steadily modernizing for roughly 25 years, since the early to mid-1990s, has become a formidable military force within China’s near-seas region, and it is conducting a growing number of operations in more-distant waters, including the broader waters of the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and waters around Europe. China’s navy is viewed as posing a major challenge to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain wartime control of blue-water ocean areas in the Western Pacific—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War—and forms a key element of a Chinese challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific. China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a wide array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, unmanned vehicles (UVs), and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems. China’s naval modernization effort also includes improvements in maintenance and logistics, doctrine, personnel quality, education and training, and exercises.
    [Show full text]
  • Deck Runoff NOD, Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards For
    This document is part of Appendix A, Deck Runoff: Nature of Discharge for the “Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS),” published in April 1999. The reference number is EPA-842-R-99-001. Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) Appendix A Deck Runoff: Nature of Discharge April 1999 NATURE OF DISCHARGE REPORT Deck Runoff 1.0 INTRODUCTION The National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 amended Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)) to require that the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) for vessels of the Armed Forces for “...discharges, other than sewage, incidental to normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces, ...” [Section 312(n)(1)]. UNDS is being developed in three phases. The first phase (which this report supports), will determine which discharges will be required to be controlled by marine pollution control devices (MPCDs)—either equipment or management practices. The second phase will develop MPCD performance standards. The final phase will determine the design, construction, installation, and use of MPCDs. A nature of discharge (NOD) report has been prepared for each of the discharges that has been identified as a candidate for regulation under UNDS. The NOD reports were developed based on information obtained from the technical community within the Navy and other branches of the Armed Forces with vessels potentially subject to UNDS, from information available in existing technical reports and documentation, and, when required, from data obtained from discharge samples that were collected under the UNDS program.
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Use of CTOL Aircraft Carriers in the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, 1945-Present
    Beyond Submarines: Development and Use of CTOL Aircraft Carriers in the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, 1945-present THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sara Anne Garrett Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Studies The Ohio State University 2011 Master's Examination Committee: John Francis Guilmartin, Advisor Peter Mansoor Copyright by Sara Anne Garrett 2011 Abstract Russian and Soviet thinking on the construction and use of aircraft carriers evolved from initial opposition to acceptance of the concept of aircraft-capable ships. However, the Russian Navy currently possesses only one CTOL-capable aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. This thesis examines the influence of social, political, and economic factors on the Soviet and Russian approach to carrier-based aviation and then considers the Moskva, Kiev, and Kuznetsov classes of carriers. The technical and personnel issues affecting the Kuznetsov‟s operation in the post-Soviet period provide a framework for evaluating the future of proposed carrier programs for the Russian Navy. In light of Russian ambitions on the world stage, public statements by naval leadership, and a marked increase in Navy spending on new ships, a continuation of Russia‟s carrier ambitions seems likely. ii Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents, for encouraging me to follow my interests and to stay the course. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank the staff of the library at the Naval War College for permitting me to avail myself of their collection. This thesis would not exist without the War College‟s materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives November 2018 NAVY READINESS Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet GAO-19-229 November 2018 NAVY READINESS Actions Needed to Address Costly Maintenance Delays Facing the Attack Submarine Fleet Highlights of GAO-19-229, a report to Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found According to the Navy, its 51 attack The Navy has been unable to begin or complete the vast majority of its attack submarines provide the United States submarine maintenance periods on time resulting in significant maintenance an asymmetric advantage to gather delays and operating and support cost expenditures. GAO’s analysis of Navy intelligence undetected, attack enemy maintenance data shows that between fiscal year 2008 and 2018, attack targets, and insert special forces, submarines have incurred 10,363 days of idle time and maintenance delays as a among others. These capabilities make result of delays in getting into and out of the shipyards. For example, the Navy attack submarines some of the most– originally scheduled the USS Boise to enter a shipyard for an extended requested assets by the global maintenance period in 2013 but, due to heavy shipyard workload, the Navy combatant commanders. delayed the start of the maintenance period. In June 2016, the USS Boise could GAO was asked to review the no longer conduct normal operations and the boat has remained idle, pierside for readiness of the Navy’s attack over two years since then waiting to enter a shipyard (see figure).
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress
    Order Code RL32418 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress Updated May 25, 2006 Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress Summary Of the 282 ships in the Navy at the end of FY2005, 54 were nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The Navy is planning to maintain in coming years a fleet of 313 ships, including 48 SSNs. The Navy is currently procuring one Virginia (SSN-774) class SSN per year. Each submarine currently costs about $2.6 billion. The FY2007-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) proposes maintaining the one-per-year procurement rate through FY2011, and then increasing the rate to two per year in FY2012. The Navy’s 30-year SSN procurement plan, if implemented, would not be sufficient to maintain a force of 48 SSNs consistently over the long run. The Navy projects that the SSN force under this plan would fall below 48 boats during the 14- year period 2020-2033, reaching a minimum of 40 boats in 2028-2029. In addition, for the first time in about 50 years, there is currently no new submarine being designed, which has led to a decline in work for submarine designers and engineers. Issues for Congress include the following: Is 48 the correct number of SSNs to meet future needs? Should the start of two-per-year Virginia-class procurement be accelerated from FY2012 to an earlier year, such as FY2009, so as to come closer to maintaining a force of 48 SSNs in the 2020s-2030s? How should the submarine design and engineering base be maintained in coming years? FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R.
    [Show full text]